A proposed constitutional amendment would protect the 'right to farm' in Indiana. Opponents say it really would block communities from regulating large hog farms and other CAFOs. / Indianapolis Star

Written by

It’s never too early to start worrying about the next Indiana Gen­eral Assembly session, and for anyone who cares about clean air and clean water, there is already plenty of reason to be concerned about the session that begins in a few months.

Come January, some lawmakers likely will resurrect an effort to amend the state constitution to include the quite innocent-sounding “right to hunt, fish and farm.” It’s all a ruse, of course, one apparently based on the hope that most voters will blindly sign off on an amendment that sounds harmless and reasonable.

The farming portion of the measure is the least mentioned but most concerning, as it would diminish the ­already weak system of environmental protections guarding Hoosiers, par­ticularly those in rural areas. Environmentalists are rightly alarmed by the measure, noting that it would give communities and residents even fewer ways to control the emergence of massive meat-producing operations such as hog or chicken farms.

All this in a state where the regula­tions and laws are already tilted way too far in the wrong direction.

“Industrial livestock interests have enormous clout at the state and local level,” said Jesse Kharbanda, who heads the Hoosier Environmental Council. “At the state legislative level, they have defeated virtually every effort to strengthen environmental safeguards. At the state regulatory level, they have defeated efforts to create new safeguards. At the local level, they have succeeded in ­advancing their inter­ests.”

For evidence of that, just consider the depressing story of Camp Tecumseh, a lovely outdoor camp for children near Lafayette. This summer, over strong objections, local commissioners approved the construction of a combined animal feeding operation ­(CAFO) that ultimately could house more than 9,000 hogs just a half-mile from the camp.

Mega-farms do fine in Indiana, you see. But they want more. They always want more.

Backed by organizations such as Indiana Farm Bureau, and by several lawmakers with financial ties to the industry, advocates pushed the proposed amendment through the legislature in 2011. If they can do so again in 2014, it will go to the voters for ratification. All you have to do to figure out how the public vote would go is read the proposed ballot language, which asks Hoosiers to affirm “that the people have a right to hunt, fish, harvest game, or engage in the agricultural or commercial production of meat, fish, poultry or dairy products.”

(Page 2 of 2)

Sounds fine, right?

Just to be sure, though, backers have added a few more words to the ballot question, noting that such activities are “a valued part of our heritage and shall be for­ever preserved for the public good.” All that’s missing is the requirement that “God Bless America” be played in the voting booth.

First things first. The idea that anyone in Indiana is taking any steps to ban the practice of hunting, fishing or farming is absurd. Even if this amendment weren’t a ruse, it would be unnecessary. Kharbanda’s group notes that meat producers already enjoy constitutional protections.

But don’t brush this one off. The amendment has the potential to damage a state that already struggles on a variety of environmental issues. And before anyone objects to what I’m writing, please note that this is not a liberal-conservative, left-right debate. This is about making sure local communities can decide what is best for them. This is about everything from water pollution caused by animal waste to foul odors that affect quality of life.

Kharbanda worries about the impact on communities that are dependent on agri­tourism and lake-based recreation, as “they would have their hands tied from doing anything that would prevent these factory farms from being placed in areas where they don’t belong.”

“Not only are we a state that values and prizes local control,” he said. “But we are a state that doesn’t want to see any given industry given special protections. This goes against the broader ideal of our heritage of supporting an equal playing field and fair opportunities for all.”

The measure (Senate Joint Resolution 7) stalled in the House last year after the Senate passed it overwhelmingly. There’s hope that the House will do the right thing again next year. But the power of big-dollar corporate farming is strong at the Statehouse; to understand that, you just need to look at the proliferation of such mega-farms in recent years.

Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, the sponsor of the proposed amendment, did not return a phone call. That’s OK. We know the story. For environmentalists, it’s always an uphill fight in Indiana. And when an amendment like this one gets branded as something that it’s not, something warm and fuzzy, it’s even harder.

“I think it’s been very savvy marketing on their part,” Khar­banda said of the proposal’s backers. “If decision-makers and the public were fully briefed on the repercussions of this amendment, they would be in strong opposition.”

For the sake of ­Indiana’s air and water, let’s hope that briefing happens.